To Kill a Mockingbird
discussion
Is this book good? Or is it boring?
message 1:
by
Delaney
(new)
-
added it
Oct 04, 2011 07:44AM
Ok, so is this book good? I heard it is, but I've also head it's the most boring book on the planet...Can someone shed some light on this book for me please?
reply
|
flag
I absolutely loved this book. I first read it in grade school and have since read it numerous times. I highly recommend it. Yeah, there are some boring parts, but on the whole it is a fabulous book that should definitely be read. Also the film version with Gregory Peck is amazing.
I suggest read the book first, but yes!!! It is sooooo good!!!
Read the book, it is so wonderful! One of my all time favorites!
It may be more easily appreciated when a person is an adult, but yes-- it's a beautiful book, funny in some places, moving in others. It's probably one of my favorite books out there. And the interesting thing is, even though it was written decades ago, it still is really relevant to the way society deals with certain topics today. We haven't changed that much.
It's amazing! I didn't read it until adulthood, but I think a teenager can appreciate it. The narrator, Scout, speaks from the child's point of view, but her take on the hypocrisy around her is very mature.
It was one of the books I studied at GCSE when I was 15 and I absolutely adored it. It's still one of my favourite books. I don't think it's boring in the slightest, in fact it's one of the few books I have read that has genuinely affected me emotionally.
It's well worth it! I didn't really appreciate it in school, we read it in bits and i wanted to just keep going. I read on myself and loved it. Its brilliantly done.
It is well worth the read.
It's a great book, a true classic. You wouldn't be sorry you read it.
If you're looking for another blockbuster filled with romance and action and magic and excitement then this is not the book for you. But if you're looking for the kind of awesomeness that is most appreciated by those with better than average grades in English, then look no further.
I thought it was really good book. I had to read it in high school for English class and its one of the rare few I actually enjoyed reading.
I would, if only for Atticus.
Although I can enjoy almost any book, especially fiction, this is one of my favorites. We had to read it last year in English, and I think that it was my favorite assigned reading book out of all the English classes I can remember. I don't know anyone who has read and not liked it.
Sarah wrote: "I absolutely loved this book. I first read it in grade school and have since read it numerous times. I highly recommend it. Yeah, there are some boring parts, but on the whole it is a fabulous b..."I didn't know there was a film! Thanks for you input!
Thank you guys! I will definitely read it after i finish the pile of books i have! :)
If you can plow through the the first chapter when they introduce every family member they ever had, you will love the rest of the book. Is it one of my all time favorite books!
It's one of the most boring books I've ever read. I don't know what's so good about it.Just because it's classic doesn't mean it's a masterpiece.
I regret reading it, waste of time.
I agree with some of the comments here - the start is quite slow, but the stories good and, having read it this summer, it's now one of my favourite classics.
This is an absolutely wonderful book.It has wonderful characters and the situations are so real.I reread it recently and thought it was one of the best books I have ever read. Renews your faith in the basic goodness of people.I love Atticus.
Well guys, I appreciate the feedback, and i will read it A.S.A.P. Thanks! :)
Boring? I think not!To Kill a Mockingbird is a literary masterpiece that contains one of the best book characters ever penned: Atticus Finch. Atticus, who quietly, yet firmly, battled the stereotypes and social inequalities of the pre-Civil Rights South (race, poverty, education, single-parenthood, etc.) serves as a role model for how we all should treat each other, even today. Similar to reading Shakespeare, one must "learn the language" of Harper Lee's Depression-era South. Once mastered, this book will become your literary touchstone!
Amanda wrote: "And I have to disagree with an above poster- if a book is a "classic," that DOES actually mean that it is good, objectively speaking, in the ways a literary critic would qualify a book to be good. As in, fluid characters, well-written dialogue, proper pacing, properly structured sentences, timeless thematics, etc.You not LIKING it is not the same thing."
I disagree. Creative writing is an art form, and art is subjective. Therefore, there is no objective way to say which books are the "best" and which ones aren't.
It's Good. I liked it. Before I read it I thought it was going to be boring but I heard so many good things about it so I read it & I Loved it.
Yes, it is very boring. While I did like the idealistic values that the novel expressed, I couldn’t bring myself to appreciate the book for them. It wasn’t enjoyable to read at all. I feel that the book was written to show how racist everyone was back in the day. So I think it’s an important novel, but I don’t think it’s all that great.
I have listed this book as one of my top 5. I am on my 3rd copy of this book. (The other 2 were read so much they have lost pages.) I agree with Brian. I think whether this book is good or not depends on your taste. If you don't need every thought spelled out to you while reading and you like to discover characters through their actions, I believe you'll enjoy this. Atticus Finch is one of the most admirable characters ever written.
I enjoyed the movie, love Gregory Peck and thought they did a good job following the book. I'd like to see an updated film and have sat around with friends trying to cast the part of Atticus.
Maybe that should be a new thread. Who can play Atticus Finch in an updated version?
It baffles me how anyone could consider this book "boring" by any measure. Try reading Jane Austen and get back to me on boring.
This is my favorite book of all time and is definitely NOT boring!
This is also my favorite book ever. I read it again ever couple years and always love it! The characters are wonderful and it is definitely not boring.
Amanda wrote: "Art is not entirely subjective. If it were, there would be no use for any form of teaching of the subjects or criticism/analyzation of the subjects. The term "bad art" would have no meaning. But since it does, there is a level of objectivity to the process."The thing is, art IS entirely subjective, because not everybody identifies the same qualities as good. People look for different things in art. I mean, there are people who consider Picasso "good", and others who find him "bad". Therefore, there isn't really a such thing as "good" or "bad" art.
Whether or not a book can be "good" or "bad" is a matter of opinion. So a literary/art critic is essentially forcing their opinion of what makes great literature upon the masses, when people can (and should) decide for themselves. When someone criticizes a piece of artwork or literature, it's like they're grading a math test or a research paper, which I don't think is right. Art isn't like math. There's no "right" or "wrong" way to do it. It's unstructured and open-ended, and that's why I like it so much.
I'm about thirty years late reading this book (never read it in high school!)...I just finished the book this past week...FAN-TAS-TIC!!! I have the movie on DVD and will be watching it soon! Definitely not a boring book.
Agree with you, Brian. There's no right or wrong when performing art or judging it. It's all in the eye of beholder. There are many things that make a book classics. Being socially acceptable is one of them. I notice that TKAM get superb exposure to students in some countries because they have to read it for school, that plays a part too in making this book famous till date.Just because a book sells, doesn't mean it's good.
And nope, just because I for example do not like To Kill of A Mockingbird or Anne of Green Gables, doesn't mean that I know nothing about literature.
Just because someone loves Twilight, doesn't mean he/she is stupid.
I loved it, I think it's worth reading.
Definitely a good book. The middle might get a tiny bit boring, but stick with it - the ending is great. It gets better every time you re-read it, too.
Please, can we not get personal? I’m guessing that the “high school student” remark at the end of your comment was directed at me.Amanda wrote: "That being said, there are DEFINITE technical aspects to most art- I can't think of one that doesn't have any- that you're either good at, or you are not. If you cannot form a sentence properly, your writing is bad. If you cannot spell, or don't have a grasp of grammar, your writing is bad. This is different from opinion or preference."
Okay, I get what you're saying about sentence structure and spelling. But that's just a comprehension of the English language - or any language you happen to be writing in, for that matter. Anybody who doesn't understand their own language shouldn't be writing in the first place. Or they should at least have a very patient editor. The subjective things are stuff like the prose, the storytelling, the characters and the pacing. People look for different things in a book and have different opinions about which parts of a book are the most important to its quality. Even the reviews on this site show this. Two people may give a review that’s equally positive, but they may have wildly different reasons for thinking the book is good. The same goes for negative reviews.
Honestly, we’re blowing this out of proportion. This is getting to be wildly complicated and off-topic, and I'm only making it worse. My point is, your LIKING or disliking a book may very well justify your overall opinion on how good it is, due to the extreme subjectivity of art. Some people may base how good a book is by how much they enjoyed reading it, which is the case with me. I don’t think a book’s core themes or values make it good if everything else about the book isn’t likable or gripping. And that's just my opinion. In fairness, I do think that TKAM is an important book, because of its reflections on racism.
One of the best books ever written. I'm stunned by the information she packs into every sentence with never a wasted word. Even disregarding the story it is one of the best depictions of the effects of the Depression on small town America. A brilliant piece of writing and an amazing work of art.
I just finished this book yesterday, and I really liked it. There are some funny parts in it.
It's a very good book but i think it's overrated. i really enjoyed it and i can see why everyone loves it but yes it's a book everyone should read but no ti doesn't mean u have to like it.
Caveat: I was forced to read it, hence partially biased.That said: it's a rubbish book. It's too short and superficial to really be 'boring', per se, but it's certainly uninteresting. It's the literary equivalent of a 1920s hollywood movie - soft focus, dramatic lighting, huge swelling romantic music, exaggerated faces, no concern for realism, etc...
The 'characters' have appeal, but are made out of cardboard and dreams - biblical in proportions. The 'serious themes' dominate the book, to the extent that every second sentence is clearly there for a particular political reason. Rather than being hit over the head, it felt like I was squashed under an elephant. It felt manipulative, shallow, horrifically uninnovative. Basically, it felt like a book for preteens, dressed up to look like serious literature.
So maybe I was harsh. It's not a terrible book, if you don't expect it to be good. I could happily put it on a shelf of reasonably entertaining, reasonably well-written books that I wanted my children (if I had any) to read, to Teach Them An Important Moral Lesson. As a pulpy, preachy kid's book, it's not bad.
The problem is that the political topicality of the novel brought too much attention to it, and it became lauded far beyond its merits. It's like if Twilight were as popular as Twilight, but slightly better written, and had Important Messages in it about Important Matters (eg if it were about peace and harmony and Why Islamic Terrorism Is Bad) - lots of people read it, love it, and then it's good enough and relevant enough that they refuse to admit that it's not brilliant. People assume that popular books are brilliant - unless they're so clearly rubbish that everyone well-read mocks them for it. Well, in this case it's mediocrely written, and critics give it the benefit of the doubt because it's On The Right Side. [Particularly important in the US, of course - to this English reader, the central plot seemed the equivalent of a discussion about whether it was good to eat babies: the political context is so remote to me that I don't get caught up in it].
[By the way, I don't agree with the other people who don't like it - I do think there's a difference between how good a book is and how much you like it. It's just that I think it's easy to confuse the two, and moral sentiment and popular opinion are two powerful forces that lead to mistaken valuations. I think that both have been important factors in the over-valuation of this novel.]
Wastrel wrote: "It's like if Twilight were..."Dude, did you just compare To Kill a Mockingbird with Twilight? Seriously, stop and think about that for a few moments.
I know what you're going through; I've had the exact same experience, only I'm a bit more doubtful of my ability to distinguish between my subjective tastes and the objective standard of a work of art.
I'll give you an example: to cut a long story short, I read Moby Dick and I hated it, and at first I went around thinking that people who love it are weirdos who are more interested in abstract messages within a story than actual concrete meaning, but after some time and consideration, I started thinking maybe other people understand something that I don't. Because sadly, I don't know everything. Even if you were a literature professor, there's likely to be some aspects of what makes literature good that you would be unaware of.
In short: have some humility. Maybe you don't understand as much as you think you do. Maybe everyone else is right, just this once.
First: I'm perplexed. I said at the beginning that I was at least partly biased. I went on to admit that I was in the minority*, and tried to suggest some reason WHY the majority might be wrong, and I was clear firstly that this error was very understandable and secondly that I only thought these might be explanations, not that I ahd any certainty on the matter. I don't claim to 'understand' anything or 'know everything'. I don't claim that people who love the book are "weirdos" (and there you go again, conflating loving the book (which I can totally understand though I didn't love it myself - but it's obviously a very accessible book with an agreeable message and likeable characters, so it's easy to see why somebody might love it) with thinking it's a great book (which I can't really understand)).So what more do you want? Are we not allowed to disagree with the majority ever? Sometimes the majority is wrong - and the social unacceptability of saying so is one reason why we keep being told that books like TKAM are the best book ever, because who wants to be the one to point out the whole emperor-and-clothes thing?
Second: no, whether I'm a professor or not, there are NO aspects of what make literature good that I am unaware of. That's a pretty basic point. I don't mean that I know how to make a good book - the technical details of how to produce greatness - which would be absurd; no, I mean that I - and by 'I' I mean 'we', as in anyone who thinks about it seriously - know, almost by definition, all the ways in which a book can be great. There is no such thing as a great book that nobody knows is great (unless too few people read it). Greatness is not some abstract and ineluctable quality that even professors don't always know about - greatness is just a way of talking about the impact that books have on people. Greatness or its lack can be known purely from experience - it doesn't require a degree. A degree might be needed to tell us WHY something is great, but the greatest professor in the world is no more able to detect greatness than the man on the street (if the man on the street does enough research and thinks about it seriously).
[Which invites the question: why are the masses so often wrong? Well:
1. they often aren't - most people are able to distinguish their tastes from their perception of greatness. Most people - other than inexperienced teenagers - do not think Twilight is great literature, even if they love it.
2. our reaction to a book is part the book, part ourselves, and part our social context; it can take a degree of both experience and introspection to pull apart these factors [one big reason for massive popularity is that marketing has succeeded in getting people to read books they wouldn't otherwise read, and they love the genre rather than the book itself - once they read more widely in the genre, they realise the book itself wasn't great. So, for instance, people loved Twilight mostly because they fell in love with paranormal romance, and Twilight was the vessel through which they encountered that genre - likewise, The Da Vinci Code was a vessel for religious conspiracy thrillers.]
3. Books have many different aspects. We tend to have tastes, which value some aspects over others. It takes a degree of introspection and experience (and conversation with others) to realise that our tastes are not universal, and recognise that while our favourite book may score a 10 on whatever attribute matters most to us, it may be a 0 on a hundred other attributes - and thus not actually as 'great' as a book with a 9 on a hundred and one attributes. The more versatile book is more powerful, because it can appeal to more people in more ways, rather than the one-note symphony which is wonderful only if it's our favourite note.]
so no, I don't accept that a book can be 'great' for some nebulous reason, and in some nebulous and invisible way, that we may never know about, and that only literary professors can even come close to finding out about. Like most things in the world: you have to be an expert to know how to create an effect, but everybody who pays some attention and gives it some thought can learn to spot the effect itself. For instance, I'm not an economist, but with a little education and by paying close attention, I can get a sense of how much inflation there is. I don't know WHY there's inflation necessarily, but I know whether it's there.
Wastrel wrote: "...I do think there's a difference between how good a book is and how much you like it. It's just that I think it's easy to confuse the two...Firstly, just want to point out this from your first post. What I was aiming for in my post was essentially the inverse of this comment, like so: "There's a difference between how bad a book is and how much you dislike it. I just think it's easy to confuse the two."
I apologize if my post seemed a bit insulting. For instance:
Wastrel wrote: "I don't claim that people who love the book are "weirdos""
If you read carefully, that was in a story about myself. The main point in common that I claimed to have with you through that experience was that of having read a book which many people claim to be great, which I personally didn't like. I guess I did say "I know what you're going through; I've had the exact same experience", but I must admit that I haven't had the exact same experience obviously, since I liked TKAM, and Moby Dick is probably a bad example because it's not an easy read like TKAM. If it helps, I had the same reaction to Catcher in the Rye.
Incidentally, while we're here at goodreads, I'm going to make a suggestion: look up some books that you've read which were great, which you also enjoyed. Now look through the reviews and you'll find that they all have negative reviews. (Incidentally, if you look at enough of these reviews, you'll find similar comments to yours about how so many people could be wrong.) This leads me to my next point:
Wastrel wrote: "so no, I don't accept that a book can be 'great' for some nebulous reason, and in some nebulous and invisible way, that we may never know about, and that only literary professors can even come close to finding out about."
I don't claim that the qualities that make a book great are nebulous or invisible. I just claim that they can be complicated or subtle, and sometimes even a small complication or a slight subtlety can be overlooked in the wrong situation, which has more to do with us and/or our lives than the book we are reading. Or alternatively you might have had a Gandalf at Moria moment -- you were maybe looking for complexity when in fact the answer was simple. Just like on a bad day you might not appreciate a good painting or some good music, you might not appreciate a good book. The difference is, looking again at a painting or listening again to a song is fairly easy; reading a book, not so much.
Incidentally, remember that I was talking about Moby Dick in my story, and that the mention of professors was in reference to that story. As far as TKAM goes, you talk about its "Important Moral Lesson", but I never saw it that way. Maybe you were looking too hard for a message? When you say "the central plot seemed the equivalent of a discussion about whether it was good to eat babies", you mean the trial and the anti-racist themes right? But what I see as the central plot is Scout's character development, where she comes to see how all these different prejudices, from the racism to the stuff that happens at school, to the discussion of the war, to Boo Radley... all of these things are linked. But it's not a Moral Lesson, or at least, not one that I needed by the time I read it. The message, if anything, is simply one of solidarity for people beginning to see things the way they really are. It's a depiction of that time when you're young and you realize that the world isn't even close to as perfect as you thought it was.
Wastrel wrote: "First: I'm perplexed. I said at the beginning that I was at least partly biased. I went on to admit that I was in the minority*, and tried to suggest some reason WHY the majority might be wrong, and I was clear firstly that this error was very understandable..."
I think you need to go back and read that first post of yours again. You don't have half as many "if"s and "but"s and "maybe"s as you seem to think you have. You mentioned being biased in the same way that people talk about not meaning offense before insulting you. I don't mind you having your opinion, but you're saying that everyone who loved the book has been duped by popular culture and that they can't objectively assess the book for themselves. Condescending much? It's a nice "understandable" error that you apparently never make, since you, as in everyone who you think is as smart as you, "know, almost by definition, all the ways in which a book can be great." Here's something to consider: like everyone, including me, you might have misunderstood a thing or two about greatness, because maybe the answers aren't as simple as you think.
Amanda wrote: "*walks in**looks around*
*backs out slowly...*"
Ditto.
Lol, it's fun arguing about books! Think of what we could be arguing about instead. At least with some disagreement the OP will get a more balanced view point, and I've brought in some discussion of the book itself. However, anyone who disagrees with me is wrong! (Joking, kinda :p)
Delaney wrote: "Ok, so is this book good? I heard it is, but I've also head it's the most boring book on the planet...Can someone shed some light on this book for me please?"It's a classic, it's very good!!! I read years and years ago and enjoyed as much or more this time around. I highly recommend it.
I think TKAM is also overrated. >_<lol.
It was a good book. I was forced to read it in school though, and slowed down to classroom pace so it bored me. If the school gave me a book to read, generally I immediately thought of it as boring. lol If I picked it up now, I think I'd like it more.
I love this book!!! I read it high school and I was the first one in my class that finished it. It only took me a couple of days to read it; I just couldn't put it down. It also got me to read outside of the genre that I had stuck too for so long.
Hi Delaney,To Kill a Mockingbird is a very good book on multiple levels. You won't be sorry.
Oh and, folks, please don't feed the Troll.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Grapes of Wrath (other topics)
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Grapes of Wrath (other topics)The Grapes of Wrath (other topics)
To Kill a Mockingbird (other topics)
